One of the main issues not discussed is that German companies are willing to invest in apprenticehip programmes and think long term because of protective labour laws. Also, labour union members are part of the company's board to ensure that labour's interest are protected.
In the UK, Osborne tried to make it easier for employers to fire by saying that they had an option to writeoff their rights for company shares. This programme was so horrible, that even the business sector rejected it.
What is really needed is govt. incentives for companies to hire and train just the same as tax incentives are given to Intellectual property rights based companies and capital based expenditure.
Currently, because of regulations and tax structure it is better and cheaper to buy and machinery and expense depreciation than hire and train a worker. No Incentive, no wonder youth unemploymen is so high.

Osbourn has inceased the time for non fault dismisals to 2 years so that an employer can sack someone up to 2 years non fault it used to be one year. This is meant to encourgage employment market flexibility, but may have the opposite effect where people dont want to change jobs because they have no legal proction for 2 years. This may result in people working in places dont to and not interested in because legal protection. This is not good for employers and employees.

Osbourn also got rid of free tribunerals and introduced high fees 1000 pound a triuberal can be charged at, so that normal people may not be able to afford these costs.

This is mps whos if lose there seat claim like 50k millionaires claiming state aid lol

I am rather disappointed at the quality of this article coming from TE. Some of the reasoning is clearly flawed. TE has always advocated - especially in respect of the manner in which labour is handled, a free market approach. If that is so, then youth unemployment and indeed widespread underemployment as with unemployment ( as a whole ) is the consequence. You cannot advocate one thing and then complain about the consequences. According to TE classical laissez faire ideology, labour is treated as merely a factor of production and its welfare should not concern government at all - perhaps a tad exaggerated, but that is the thrust of this sort of thinking . According to this belief system people are unemployed or underemployed because basically they are feckless and lazy. In real terms the government should not be concerned if people are unemployed or underemployed, although governments should pretend to be doing everything to see that workers are satisfied - but that is all part of a political show. On the other hand governments give entrepreneurs a free reign to treat labour 'efficiently' and frankly do not care or consider that labour also means a human being with flesh and blood, who has to live somewhere, feed himself and his family, pay the cost of heating his home etc, and that these cost money. I am baffled that TE takes any truck with this, since TE is wholly on the side of the entrepreneur whose only concern is to make profit for himself. In the UK for example in pursuance of this laissez faire ideology we have seen ever since the conservative government of Margaret Thatcher the systematic dismantling of rules and regulations designed to protect the interests of workers and strengthen the arm of the employer. That continues to this day. As an example there is the 'zero hours' contract which is legal in England and Wales, by which the hapless employee is often compelled by various means to sign a contract which does not guarantee any fixed work or income and provides no right or benefits of any sort whatsoever. Such contracts have become de rigueur along side the whittling down of various other protections which workers should normally be expected to have to shield them from unscrupulous employers.
However, if indeed there is concern about unemployment, then would it not be advisable to provide training to youngster in schools about running a business, how to set a business up and about business generally ? Since standard employment itself has now become such an unreliable and precarious proposition , is it not time we start training young people to be self-reliant, rather than to continue pretending to give them skills which would make them independent free men and women and not modern day serfs and slaves. Work, in the sense in which most people today understand it does not provide any independence or stability even in the civil service and in government. In my lifetime words like redundancy and restructuring have come into the mainstream lexicon of the so called labour market. In the long term I would not advise anyone to rely on classic employment for his/her income security - that is the advice I have given my children, they can see for themselves where education, work and loyalty has brought me to. Governments in the UK, as stooges of the capitalists entrepreneurs certainly do not care much about the welfare of the working class whatever strenuous noises they make to the contrary. TE seems here to be singing along with the government, can we have some fresh thinking, the present approaches are clearly not working and the solutions proffered are equally lame ?

The UK is world known for its government controlled health-care system.

I don't know how to describe the British Government's economic policies, but I don't think Laissez Faire, or a hands off approach, does the UK justice. The TE has supported other nations borrowing the UK's approach to having a government hands on health care system... again, not very Laissez Faire.

I am not sure about that claim either. But from what i understand although no exbert by any streach is that youth unemployment is partricular in some european counrties and uk to extent is not of result of free market but specalial privilages given to current older workers typically that makes then hard to fire and replace with cheaper more productive younger people on occasion. Portugal and spain greece and uk to lesser extent older workers protected.

A two tier system where older works can not be replaced as employers may wish in europea and some parts of uk economy. In british government owns offices the people can not be laid of cheaply in theory.

Listen kid, the guys at TE have been espousing laissez faire economics since 1843 - I am certain they are laughing their heads off reading our discussion,frankly. Secondly, may I advice you to enroll on a basic course in economics, as you have clearly never taken one.

I am rather disappointed at the quality of this article coming from TE. Some of the reasoning is clearly flawed. TE has always advocated - especially in respect of the manner in which labour is handled, a free market approach. If that is so, then youth unemployment and indeed widespread underemployment as with unemployment ( as a whole ) is the consequence"

Firstly would think what economist has advocated and what happens much different. Even if the economist did advocate free markets and this was a set consequence of a freemarket one certainly followed the other. Then may still not explain it as not freemarket.

This assumption that freemarket cause high youth unemployment not sure about as could possibly pay less and fitter healthier generally. This is dis preportionately high youth unemployment. Even freemarket theory that support unemployment would not explain the youth part.

Also what some articles in the economist may have said before or not relavant to the correctness or uncorrectness of this current article as would be independant judge each piece on own merits. If each artcile was locked in to every other artilce ever written would be a conistancey problem the more artciles written the more likly to be locked in on something that untrue out or date or previous mis judgements.

Your reasons and bagage you bring to article of what you think economist thinks what written before what effect would have on youth employment seems to clould reasoning kinda.

I would also disagree that civil servants " Work, in the sense in which most people today understand it does not provide any independence or stability even in the civil service and in government."

in civil service with the compensation scheme, protected pensions still brings high stablity. As complusory reduances relatively rare and even if get one get above reduanced far beyond what employment law offers. The pensions pay as you go are in effect insured by everyone else. Admidatly i had by civil service contract illegally canelled and was not given tribuneral or a penny in break of the law. Apart from civil sevice illegal discrimination when they tear up the law, which would guess is relativly rare, then civil servants job stablity then many of the so called more stable employment of the past. But i do take point this is a rarity in current age and stablity much worse.

The zero hour contracts and flexiblity of contracts in labour market which young are seem given seems bit of a two tier labour market. Older people are protected contracts that can not be ended on a no blame no fee basis.

Young people are given i supose a freemarket short end of the stick. But older people protected and in a sense subized for the young, like american auto works that 2 people do the same job one gets paid double what the other. So one is subizidies another benefits and extra pay. In uk likewise in coperations this may happen to extent.

Not that i think sensible, but if had a complete free market approach fired all old people terminate the contracts default on civil service pensions other intergenerational transfer payments. Young people may have it better. As when working there zero hour contracts at slave rate, still have to pay silly taxes so that older civil servants and public sector working and retired can be subizded. So get miniiun wage, yet have to pay council tax that pays older people above what they would get in free in market subized there final salery pensions. If councils also paid rock botton no pensions zero hours contracts than council tax may not even be needed as could reliee on central government funding. Much of the government spending on wages, The outsourced companies on unrealstic profit for a few fat cats. So problerly better paying a few public sector works this free rent, that outsourced as be better multipler and have more benefit on equality so posisbly feed better to demand if a choice better overpaid public sector or juicy out sourced contracts that few people share pie.

young people have the worst of everything. They have to pay high tax for olders peoples subizdies, such as final salery pension public sector and in private employers lower wages so other people can be paid more with other benefits. Even housing the governments market maniplation through the likes of planning and more so through policy of house inflation and mainplating market has meant a vast transfer of wealth to older people from young. Also councils houses subizdies go to older groups disproptely. Young people now even single parents or disablities not given subidies council houses. As may given away prices to previous generation/.

I supose it could be argued that young people may have less incentive to work today than previouly. As they have to give away most of there profits to previous generations and other company employees.
If young people given equal rights to older be more incentive to work may be completly different labour market.

With the greatest respect I have found your comment rater difficult to follow, it appears well thought out, however you have not articulated it properly. I will try to read it again, but thank-you for your contribution to this discussion.

Minimum wage in the US i $7. For a company almost any person can generate more than $7 in value. It's not youth being lazy, as even a very lazy person can generate more than that.

The problem is lack of investment. There are simply not enough businesses hiring compared to the number of workers seeking jobs. Why is that the case.

Because we are making it so hard. A company can't just hire a guy to do some maintenance work, and then let him go if it doesn't work out. Even in the most lenient states who do have high job growth red tape and taxes can be very burdensome. In other states and countries you won't even be able to fire him.

Also, many places companies are not allowed to replace overpaid workers and is overstaffed. For them it makes no sense to hire a cheap worker, to do some simple task when you already have too many workers.

it is important to remember that, in Europe, austerity was not only adopted because of economic reasons. The high-politics game played at EU Councils resulted in countless agreements, all saying the same thing: Northern countries and the Commission would help Southern countries escape bankruptcy if these countries put their budgets in order and reform so they close the competitivity gap.

I once had a paint-contracting business. I did some government contracts (painting of State University buildings). Another contractor was on the same campus, completing similar projcts.

Per the letter of our contracts, the other contractor administered drug tests. On the day of the testing, only 3 of their workers showed up (out of about 15). The contractor soon fell behind on the project, started getting hit with daily penalties, and eventually ended up in bankruptcy.

I ignored the rule (fully aware that 9 out of 10 painters have drugs oozing through their sytem), and came out with a healthy profit.

In China, this problem especially serious. Because of chinese traditional culture, many parents want to take care of their children from begining to end. They like to arrange everything for kids, such as education, job, marriage, even breed the next generation of their kids. This is why there are so many unemployment in China.

Chinese people always enthusiastically focus on the school record of their children, but ignore an important factor that they should first teach kids how to face and adapt the tough environment and variety of challenge from the harsh reality of unemployment.

Youth unemployment in China is not that bad. Most of the unemployed are people unwilling to take low paid work, and rather live with the parents for a while.

However while the youth unemployment is not that bad, many youth in China has very low wages. A common starting was for a college graduate is about 3000 RMB. For an average worker it is 1500 - 2000 RMB. Thats not enough to live on.

The educational system was stricter in the pass, as a result the cultural level of the student was higher when they ended their degrees, even the companies went to the universities searching for students to hire then.

But progressive thiking persuaded us that it was better to relax discipline in the classrooms, to take out the autority of the teachers, to treat students as friends, and to allow students to pass examinations almost without effort.

The outcome is well known, youngsters have the lowest cultural level in history, the behave with teachers and parents as their buddies, and they are far away to be ready to endure a exigent laboral environment in a company.

When society realize that we are wrong, and we must to go back to a traditional educational system, supporting the values of effort, struggle, merit and excellence, we will have again prepared youngsters to face professional life.

I agree with you that the present manner of educating our kids is wrong, too relaxed and not providing our youth with the right values. Especially the respect for parents and teachers has got lost. Nonetheless, I think that the situation in some countries (like Spain) nowadays is so bad that even very well trained students hardly have a chance.

Thing is the statistics don't agree with you, in the UK at least. Pretty much anything you look at indicates that behaviour has improved markedly. Young people drink less, take less drugs, get pregnant less, truant less and commit less crime than they did a generation ago.

Reminds me of a quote:
"Our youth now love luxury. They have bad manners, contempt for authority; they show disrespect for their elders and love chatter in place of exercise; they no longer rise when elders enter the room; they contradict their parents, chatter before company; gobble up their food and tyrannize their teachers."

We cannot give out any grades lower than average, because there is nothing below average in the socialist utopia. After all, we wouldn't want to hurt their fragile feelings would we? How can you be so cruel and heartless!

If someone doesn't do their homework and doesn't pass tests, that isn't their fault and clearly it isn't the teachers either, it is society's fault. Since society failed them, we must take care of them for the rest of their lives.

Don't worry 20 somethings, you don't need a job. Government will take care of you!

It boggles my mind how much this is ignored in America right now. I'm in my mid twenties and have experienced first hand how difficult it is to make enough to get by, let alone find a job right now even if you are fresh out of college. A few major problems stand glaringly out above the rest:
'
- The amount of debt, especially in the form of student loans, that youth hold has become debilitating for them to function in the current economy. Because many have significant monthly bills for loans or other forms of debt, they often aren't able to risk staying in a low paying entry level position when they can make higher incomes working jobs like waiting tables, I'm entirely serious and have seen it happen many times. It's sad but true. It also doesn't allow individuals to save, which prevents them from possibly moving to where employment might be. It takes a fair amount of upfront cash to move somewhere these days. Basically it amounts to a lack of financial freedom for an entire generation which prevents them from being dynamic within the economy and limits the ability of the economy to function properly or as it could going forward.
'
- As many have pointed out, a lot of companies have scaled back their operations, often cutting entry level positions for the sake of core positions. Unfortunately many companies now have some overly realistic expectations of what an employee must have for previous experience in the remaining entry level positions. 2-3 yrs exp. for an entry level position eliminates a lot of wholly competent unemployed youths who could clearly fill these positions if given even a minute amount of training. Companies need to learn that if they want a vibrant economy they are going to need to invest in their workforce. You can't expect to export the cost of training to workers and get a lot of people to bite any more than they have. Companies need to remember that business is often about taking risks. It seems like it would make sense to train employees on a larger scale in entry level positions. Even if they jump ship, if this is the norm for the private sector, you will just have more dynamic workers to fill all positions. People will sort themselves out into the fields they fit best in if enough companies are as invested in their young employees as they expect their employees to be in their business. Seems like a plus.
'
I've heard too many people from older generations deride millennials as entitled and lazy and that's just plain wrong. Do they have some expectation as to how they thought they were going to be able to live, absolutely, but blame that on the the expectations presented to them for their whole lives, the good times that preceded the crash and the growing debt culture of living far beyond one's means. It was a consumer economy on steroids with debt as the growth horomone. No one under the age of 30 can realistically be blamed for the economy going to hell. And yet a large part of the burden of the crash has been significantly placed on them. They're just the ones who have been stumbling around trying to navigate the post crash aeconomy, staring bleakly into the future thinking "what the hell are we supposed to do." All the while those running the show argue with one another about who gets the bigger slice of pie. Politicians and private sector business people have done absolutely nothing of any significance to extend a hand to millenials and try and integrate them into the economy.
'
This is a huge generation of intelligent, creative, passionate, and hardworking individuals and the fact that they aren't all employed is disappointing. That many are highly educated, is disturbing. Many young individuals may not have the specific skills a company is looking for, but it's not as if they're stupid. It's going to take some investment to get this system right. The elders of the public and private sectors would do well to extend a hand to their younger peers. They could sure use it.

I am totally on your side, you are about the same age as my son, and I really respect people your age. Unfortunately most of the people running governments are blockheads and will not even bother listening to people like you. I entirely feel your frustration and anxiety for the future.
Seriously , young people should come together and tell governments that they have had enough. Whatever happened to the 'Occupy' campaigns of a few years ago for example, have those fizzled out ?

You have touched on a relatively recent trend - not a new trend, perse, but one that has become the over-riding norm:

Employers have become very specific in the requirements of applicants, only looking to hire people that have the exact skills and experience pertinent to the position they are looking to fill.

This is by no means just a problem for young entrants (although it is particularly tough on them, as they obviously have limited skills/experience). People mid-career who have been laid-off are pretty much limited to finding positions in an identical field, with identical responsibilities.

ie - if you have 10 years experience as a Financial Analyst in the Aviation industry, you will NOT be considered for a position as a Financial Analyst in the Food or Real-Estate indsustry.

I don't agree with the hiring practise, as the fact is - if you are smart enough to be a Financial Analyst, you're smart enough to pick up on industry nuances, but that is the way the employment market has become.

Even as educated youth are flocking to the Oldest profession in alarming number to pay off their student debt, the unemployment number is not coming down. Many have no choice but go to Germany or even to the East end of the World.

It's WORKING COUPLES who have made a dog's breakfast of the labour market... at least in the Anglosphere
..
We used to have a system of single-income households... one good job per family... the breadwinner being entitled to a living wage... no two-income govt worker households... young single men allowed a probationary period as potential breadwinners... We aimed at a fair and efficient system
..
With Feminism of course, rich single girls and second-wage wives were allowed the high-wage jobs that belonged to men as breadwinners with wives and families to support...
..
If a wife has a job in her own right, she must forfeit her husband's pension and any other spousal benefits, possibly even spousal inheritance rights... If women want 'equality', they get equality NOT a free ride... Then we'll see how many women are really interested in full-time work
..
I always say... A HOMEMAKER ALLOWANCE is the most practical solution... available to single-income couples but not to working couples... conditional on the homemaker not having a full-time job... Vast numbers of women would rather be homemakers given the choice
..
Work is far more important for young men than for old married ladies

Glad we got that straightened out... You were being facetious... You had me worried there... 'Ignorant misogynist' I can live with... But I wouldn't like to be accused of not writing clearly
..
You're new to TE blogs, Clinton3K... (Welcome BTW)... or you would know I have been advocating a homemaker allowance for years... And there is no objection to the idea... Nobody, including yourself, can see anything wrong with it
..
There are millions of men without work... And millions of ladies working their butts off who would rather be homemakers... Can't we put two and two together?
..
All it takes is conceding that Feminism may not be such a bright idea

It is a complex subject, but I do agree - most men have faced this before - women who don't really need a job (their husbands have a sufficiently good job/income), but work because they want to - and those women then get hired/promoted over an unemployed guy who is struggling to feed his family.

That situation blows. And it is rampant.

That sad, in fairness, we can't pretend its the ONLY scenario. There are plenty of single mothers who work, for example - who actually have it worse than any man working (except for the relatively rare single-father scenario...).

But I also like the idea of a "Home-maker" allowance, or tax credit, of some sort.

It would definitely level the playing field a bit for single-income households.

Part of the reason housing has become so crazy expensive in tier-1 cities is the ubiquitous dual-income household. A single-income household - even with a decent single-income - can't afford decent housing in tier-1 cities anymore.

I do not know enough about the homemaker allowance to form an opinion on it.

But I do know enough about the phrase "...the high-wage jobs that belonged to men..." to form an opinion about the frame of its writer.

It wreaks of gender based entitlement: There are many ways to read your intent, and it is possible that I got it wrong. But if it's not misogyny (a hatred of women), then it's certainly male chauvinism (a feeling of superiority over women) to imply that any occupation inherently "belongs" to one gender over another as a function of their role in society.

If I've mischaracterized your position in any way, please correct me.

Followup/clarification question: Is this idea restricting the homemaker allowance to gender? i.e. could one member of a same-sex couple get this allowance WHEN same sex marriage becomes recognized federally?

It might well seem hilarious, because you have no children, or if you do, you leave all the burden of the housework and looking after the children to your misses who you also presumably expect to work or she goes out to work and leaves the housework and looking after the children on some poor immigrant girl who in reality is no more than a modern day slave.

Big question, but less than half the article addresses it, choosing instead to talk about the statistics and the consequences. Disappointing blog.
.
Youth unemployment is always a problem when investment is low. Youth employment is generated by Question Marks and Stars, which are decreasing due to low investment as companies conserve cash. Cash Cows don't hire juniors, because the old guard know the business and can milk the cash cows best. Similarly, companies who want to liquidate/restructure the Dogs fire on FIFO and the last man to turn out the lights will be a senior manager. INVESTMENT is the basic problem.
.
So:

i. Deregulate. Don't cripple SME and start-ups with Sarbanne-Oxley and millions of lines of compliance code. Abolish the 50 employee rules in France and their analogs around the world.

ii. Redirect government spending away from opex into capex. I.e. away from legal and accounting salaries into R&D and investment in infrastructure, investment in human capital, etc.

iii. Redirect government spending towards debt repayment. Arguably the most important factor to an investor is fiscal and regulatory stability - how can one invest if one fears taxes and rules will be changed after one has made one's investment. Fiscal and regulatory stability is what used to separate First World from Third World investment destinations. Yet, with examples like Iceland, Greece etc, investors are holding back because they fear higher taxes, lower currencies etc. as governments go bust 5-10 years down the road. Even in Germany, how can one invest if one fears further EU bailouts which will result in higher German taxes?

Social organization. If businesses were to maintain indefinite numbers of entry level vacancies (i.e. welcome as many young people on extremely low pay as want to sign up), then youth unemployment wouldn't exist. Young people would just hop about until finding real opportunities, develop market-relevant skills in-house in response to internal mentoring and move up the pay ladder.

But very few businesses operate like that - shrink to core function, fire & retain only the most experienced & proficient, and outsource all peripheral support to the lowest cost provider. That's a hollowing out that's lethal to younger people, prevents acquisition of useful skills and retards productivity across the economy.

Certainly, flexible labor markets, ease of doing business and eliminating entry barriers are all important. So is universal access to & uptake of quality education. But crucially, all businesses across the economy have take an active social role in opening penny-paying entry level positions (even "coffee maker, cleaner & ass kisser") so that young people have a chance of at least learning what they have to learn.

It comes down to this: You can have a minimum wage (even a fairly high one), so long as simple work cannot be outsourced beyond the range of that minimum wage. Businesses will still hire the untrained and unskilled, and train them up as needed, because that is the only way to get the simple tasks done. However, once you can hire someone half way around the world to do those simple tasks, and hire them for their local wage, a minimum wage which is much higher than that is simply a guarantee that anyone unskilled and untrained here will be unemployed.
.
In short, in the global economy that we live in today, you can have a minimum wage and high youth unemployment. Or you can have no minimum wage and low youth unemployment. But you cannot have both.
.
I just wish we were willing to discuss the trade-off, and make a conscious decision as to which we prefer. Instead of keeping an obsolete choice, and resolutely pretending that nothing in the world had changed.

something should be done about youth unemployement as can have long term future issues its something worth fixing. However poltically as in uk its better to pay freeloading baby boomers a reward for failure for short term votes.

Agreed. If we froze pensions, rose pension ages immediately to 70 and then indexed pensions to life expectancy, eliminated winter fuel allowance, and used the funds saved to subsidize employment (for the youth, for workers in their 60s, for women returning after childbirth), then we'd be a much more prosperous and more egalitarian country.

Of course, there are many other matters that need to be addressed - we need to free up green belt land around London for new construction (lots of high density apartment blocks). And we need new motorways and airports and telecommunications and electricity interconnectors to Iceland, France & Ireland. And we need well designed, integrated & affordable public transport in major cities like Manchester. And we need a better designed tax system with much lower corporation tax and more internationally competitive financing terms for manufacturing businesses, etc.

So much needs reform. And all this bloody government does is hand out more unaffordable sops to the vampire voters, then impose brutal visa reforms that wreck our universities and scare away multinational businesses; and then threat endlessly about Bulgarians & Romanians (migrant laborers are massive net tax payers and so create more jobs than they take!).

From my understanding with a Londoner friend of mine, companies just don't want to make entry-level housing, period, regardless of how much land is there. Thus, entry-level housing for young adults is effectively unattainable.

Basically, while the government is a problem, so are the companies themselves.

This is a consequence of the scarcity of land with planning permission.

Quite clearly, building luxury housing for rich professionals & executives is far more lucrative than building simple housing for young people. That will always be the case, until the market for luxury housing has been saturated, at which time developers would begin to compete with one another for low-cost housing projects also.

The trouble is, precisely because the government refuses to release land, and refuses to allow construction above height limits, and refuses to allow construction of properties dissimilar to others in already existing on a street, there's simply no possibility for developers to move down the value curve to serve lower income workers, students or young people.

Developers will always be more interested in servicing the rich, and since there's so little land available for development that is what they overwhelmingly do.

If government released enough new land, and mandated high construction density (e.g. 200 square kilometers of row after row of pretty 6-8 floor sandstone clad apartment blocks, with spacious interiors, with narrow tree lined streets, with open wifi at every street lamp, with cycle paths & new subway stations), then there would be tens of thousands of builders scrambling to get it built. London is an enormously lucrative market - even at the low end, rents and property values remain high. And actual costs of construction, outside of the urban center, are low (it's the bureaucracy, legal fees, admin & planning delays that usually do most to drive up costs).

i agree with shaun i studied planning i have bsc in that also. The green belt is a nonsence i also agree that coperation tax should be lowered to as near as zero as poltically possible. People should be taxed yes but coperation tax a nonsense.

I also agree that this government for all its talk handouts unaffordable things to pensioner such as tripple lock this governement wants to cut working age possible tax paying befit types to pay for money for no hopper vanpire voters.

I would agree with pensions changes of imediate effect public sector could led the way with an imdate change to 65. I also agree that imgiration reforms are bad for univerity and buiness. so basically i agree so the ayes s have it.

In respect to housing and companies companies want profit, housing costs little to build if was made sense to build affordable housing then people would if so if was enough land than would think would. Its only artfical shortage that problemnof course by 3 am i am drunken

What do you think is better for enhancing employment opportunities for young people?
- increasing taxes on workers, businesses and payroll today (and slashing back ever further on capital spending or education investment), in order to pay for an exploding pension bill, and continuing to retire 65ers (their consumption collapses as soon as they retire too).

- having 65ers work to 70, so that they enjoy higher incomes and spend more in the economy, whilst freeing massive funds to allow payroll & business tax cuts, higher public investment and subsidies for youth employment creation

Remember, supply creates its own demand. Removing productive capacity (65ers) that has already been matched to productive economic activity, will not support GDP and will not make it any easier to safeguard a decent living standard & life opportunities for all (young people included).

Raising retirement ages (as life expectancy surges upwards) is the only prospect we have of achieving positive GDP per capita growth (and better living standards) in the next 5 years.